Thursday, February 28, 2013

As a new high-profile group is established in the US to fight legalisation, Steve Rolles, a long-time advocate for regulating drugs, considers how recent reform victories are reshaping the landscape of the oldest debate in drug policy.

The debate around the legalisation and regulation of cannabis has been with us since the 60s, but recent years have seen it move increasingly from the margins into the political mainstream. In the US, support for legalising cannabis has crossed the 50 percent threshold; even in the spiritual home of the War on Drugs, and despite bipartisan political hostility, a majority now support an end to cannabis prohibition.

Last November, the issue made the decisive move from theoretical debate to political reality as the states of Washington and Colorado passed ballot initiatives that not only legalised personal cannabis possession for adults but also set in motion the first regulated markets for non-medicinal cannabis anywhere in the world. If, as seems likely, the laws are implemented (the federal government is still considering its response at time of writing), this will represent the first real breach in the global prohibitionist regime.

While reform advocates have been understandably jubilant, for opponents, a strategic rethink has become necessary, perhaps best represented by a new group called Smart Approaches to Marijuana. This initiative is led by Kevin Sabet, a US Office of National Drug Control veteran under three administrations and probably the highest profile opponent of cannabis legalisation in the US with hundreds of print and broadcast credits to his name. Sabet is supported in the SAM leadership team by former congressman Patrick Kennedy, journalist David Frum and a group of academics and medical professionals.

The SAM project appears to represent a clear strategic repositioning for Sabet and, by inference, the wider coalition of cannabis law reform opponents. Most striking is the recommendation that cannabis possession should become a civil offence and that criminal records for possession be expunged. The additional requirement for a “mandatory health screening and marijuana-education program as appropriate” has met with indignation amongst some US reformers, but suggestions that SAM advocates mandatory rehab are not supported by the text on the site (referrals to treatment are specifically advocated only "if needed").

While the term ‘decriminalisation’ does not appear, it is precisely what is being advocated by most definitions used in drug policy (closely mirroring the Portuguese decriminalisation model, albeit only for cannabis). It is a significant shift for Sabet who, as recently as April 2012, was writing of decriminalisation that “such a policy may actually make us worse off” and flat out that it “won’t work”.

It would be gratifying to think his group has been convinced by reform arguments or evidence from 14 US states and 25 or so other countries around the world that have already adopted decriminalisation models. However, equally plausible is the dawning realisation that decriminalisation, at least of cannabis, is now a political inevitability and Canute-like defiance is futile. Obama’s recent statement that ‘we’ve got bigger fish to fry’ (than arresting cannabis users) suggests that SAM may also be echoing (or informing) shifting priorities at federal level. There is certainly considerable convergence between the SAM proposals and the US Office of National Drug Control Policy’s talk of a third way (between the extremes of legalisation and a War on Drugs) and retreat from more hawkish War on Drugs rhetoric.

Some hardline prohibitionist groups, however, seem determined to dig in. The World Federation Against Drugs for example, describes advocates of decriminalisation as “driven by greed, disrespect of human rights and lack of understanding of the harms of drugs and of addiction”. SAM by contrast, appears to be conceding on decriminalisation but drawing a line in the sand on legalisation regulation.

The arguments against legalisation are familiar, with, perhaps unsurprisingly, “cannabis use is harmful” front and centre, supported by extensive detail and references. For Transform, debating the risks of cannabis is a distraction from the more salient point that, however risky cannabis is, it is more risky when produced and supplied via an unregulated criminal market (and this is quite aside from the harms of that criminal market). Cannabis needs to be legally regulated because of its risks, not because it is safe.

More interestingly, SAM places great emphasis on the threat of the commercialisation of a legal cannabis market, dwelling on the spectre of Big Tobacco. This, certainly, is a legitimate concern but, in fairness, hardly one that has been ignored.*

Regulation is a blank slate; governments can establish any legal and policy framework they deem appropriate. As demonstrated by Uruguay’s proposals for a state monopoly on cannabis supply and the emerging non-profit cannabis cooperatives in Spain, a commercial model is far from a given, let alone one that “will act just as the tobacco industry acts” as SAM dramatically proclaims.

Indeed, the tobacco industry has seen increasingly strict regulation of dosage, price, packaging, public consumption, branding and marketing over past decades. In much of the West, even in the US, these smarter approaches to tobacco (regulatory tools are impossible under prohibition) have helped dramatically reduce tobacco use in a matter of decades at the same time as cannabis use has been rising.

It’s hard to escape the observation that SAM may be making a case against free-market legalisation while actually supporting a strictly regulated market model. Maybe having seen the light on decriminalisation, they will soon join principled reformers in helping design the optimal regulatory frameworks for legal cannabis that can deliver the shared goals we all seek

New
Ipsos MORI poll shows 53% of GB public want cannabis legalised or
decriminalised, and 67% want a comprehensive review of our approach to
drugs

A new poll by Ipsos MORI, commissioned by
Transform Drug Policy Foundation, shows that over half of the public
(53%) support cannabis legalisation (legal regulation of production and
supply) or decriminalisation of possession of cannabis. Only 1 in 7
support heavier penalties and more being spent on enforcement for
cannabis offences. In addition, the survey shows that around two thirds
(67%) support a comprehensive independent review of all the possible
policy options (from legal market regulation to tougher enforcement)
for controlling drugs.

The findings indicate that 45% of mid-market newspaper readers
(including Daily Mail and Express readers) support cannabis
legalisation (legal regulation of production and supply) or
decriminalisation of possession of cannabis, with less than one in five
(17%) supporting heavier penalties and more being spent on enforcement
for cannabis offences. For tabloid readers these figures are 47% and
20%. Around 65% of mid-market newspaper readers and 66% of tabloid
readers support a full review of all drug policy options.

Additional survey findings include:

53% of the public support
legal regulation or decriminalisation of cannabis - 50% of
Conservative supporters and 55% of Labour supporters also support
these options, as do 46% of Daily Mail readers

Only 14% of the public (and
17% of Daily Mail readers) support tougher enforcement and heavier
penalties for cannabis offences

67% want a comprehensive
review of all policy options. 70% of Conservative supporters and
69% of Labour supporters also feel this way, as do 61% of Daily
Mail readers

When outcomes from Portugal
were briefly described, almost 40% of the public support the
Portuguese-style decriminalisation of small quantities of drugs
for personal possession

A
spokesperson for Transform said: “These results show just how far ahead
of politicians the public are. Whilst Labour and Conservative
politicians shy away from the debate on drugs, around half of their
supporters want to see legal regulation of cannabis production and supply
or decriminalisation of cannabis possession, and a significant majority
want a comprehensive review of our approach to drugs – including
consideration of legal regulation. The poll demonstrates that even
amongst Daily Mail readers, almost half support less punitive
approaches to cannabis, and a majority back an independent review of
all options, which may come as a surprise to the paper’s editors.

“Politicians
have repeated their ‘tough on drugs’ propaganda for so long
that they assume the public are more fearful of change than they really
are. In fact the world has changed, and the public are far more
progressive than was thought, right across the political spectrum. At
the very least the government should heed long standing and growing
calls for a review of all policy options, including legal regulation.
And as a matter of urgency the coalition should engage in experiments
in the Portuguese style decriminalisation of possession of drugs for
personal use. Now is the time for the heads of all parties to show the
leadership citizens surely deserve.”

Ipsos MORI carried out the survey, on behalf of Transform Drug Policy
Foundation, between 25th January and 5th February
2013. A sample of 946 British adults aged 18+ completed a face-to-face
survey via the Ipsos MORI omnibus. The data has been weighted by
gender, social grade, age, region, working status, housing tenure and
ethnicity to reflect the known local population profile.

Questions /
Definitions

Given the subject matter,
questions were presented to respondents on showcards with options
reversed for some respondents. Respondents read out a letter to
indicate their response.

Q1A. Possession of illegal drugs is
currently a criminal offence in the UK. Some other countries
have ‘decriminalised’ possession of small quantities of
illegal drugs for personal use. This means that possession of a
small quantity for personal use is usually punished with fines (like a
speeding fine), or attendance at a drug treatment or education
programme, rather than arrest. Under ‘decriminalisation’,
drugs are still confiscated. Production and supply to others remain
criminal offences that may result in punishments carrying a criminal
record, for example a prison sentence, fines or community service.

With this in mind, which of the following comes closest to your view of
the law in the UK?

The law in the UK
should stay as it currently is, so that possession of illegal
drugs remains a criminal offence.

The law in the UK
should be changed, so that the possession of small quantities of
illegal drugs is ‘decriminalised’, as described.

An experimental trial of
‘decriminalisation’ should take place for a limited
time period in some parts of the UK, to allow its
effectiveness to be evaluated.

Other

Q1B. Possession of illegal drugs is
currently a criminal offence in the UK. Some other countries
have ‘decriminalised’ possession of small quantities of
illegal drugs for personal use. This means that possession of a
small quantity for personal use is usually punished with fines (like a
speeding fine), or attendance at a drug treatment or education
programme, rather than arrest. Under ‘decriminalisation’,
drugs are still confiscated. Production and supply to others remain
criminal offences that may result in punishments carrying a criminal
record, for example a prison sentence, fines or community service.

Since this was introduced in Portugal in 2001, and
resources were instead spent on healthcare, overall use of drugs rose
at a similar rate to neighbouring countries. However, there were higher
numbers accessing drug treatment, the justice system spent less time
and resources on drug-related crime, and there were falls in
problematic drug use, and drug use amongst school age children also
fell.

With this in mind, which of the following comes closest to your view of
the law in the UK?

The law in the UK
should stay as it currently is, so that possession of illegal
drugs remains a criminal offence.

The law in the UK
should be changed, so that the possession of small quantities of
illegal drugs is ‘decriminalised’, as described.

An experimental trial of
‘decriminalisation’ should take place for a limited
time period in some parts of the UK, to allow its
effectiveness to be evaluated.

Other

Q2. Would you support the government
commissioning a full independent review of drug policy, that compared
our current system of criminalisation with alternatives, including:
increasing the criminal penalties for production, sale and use of
drugs; decriminalising drug possession as described; and the
legalisation and state regulation of production and supply for some
currently illegal drugs?

Yes, I would support a review

No, I would not support a
review

Other

Q3. Here are a number of different
options for regulating the production, supply and use of cannabis (also
sometimes called marijuana, pot, hash, grass, skunk, weed, spliff or
joints). Please read through this card and then read out the letter
next to the option which you think best matches how you think cannabis
should be regulated.

Scenario A. Legal – minimal
control

Legal to
produce and sell cannabiswith minimal control and
regulation.

Similar to tea and coffee, there is unrestricted advertising and
availability. Only basic trading standards and quality controls
apply, with prices, location and number of outlets decided by the
market.

Scenario B. Legal – moderate
control

Legal
production and availability of cannabiswith moderate government
control and regulation

Similar to the current system for tobacco and alcohol, but cannabis is
only available from licensed shops or premises. The number and location
of outlets is decided by the government, which also influences prices
through taxes or setting minimum prices. Packaging carries health
warnings, and advertising and age restrictions apply.

If you are underage and in possession of cannabis, it may be
confiscated. Licensed premises selling the drug to anyone underage will
be fined, and may lose their license. All unlicensed sales are illegal
and may result in punishments that carry a criminal record, for example
a prison sentence, fines or community service.

Scenario C. Legal – strict control

Legal
production and availability of cannabiswith strict government
control and regulation

Like controlled medicines, cannabis is only available either with a
doctor’s prescription for medical uses, and/or bought over the
counter from a licensed retailer similar to a pharmacist, trained to
give health information and advice. The government decides
prices, maximum quantities sold, and the number and location of
outlets. Users may be registered, age restrictions apply.
Packaging carries health warnings, and branding and advertising are
banned.

Any licensed retailers selling cannabis to anyone underage will be
fined and may lose their license. All unlicensed sales are illegal and
may result in punishments that carry a criminal record, for example a
prison sentence, fines or community service.

Scenario D. Illegal – decriminalise
possession

Illegal to
produce and supply, but possession of cannabisdoes not lead to a criminal
record

Supply of cannabis is only through the illegal market where
manufacture, distribution and sale are unregulated. Those found in
possession of a small amount of cannabis for personal use would not be
given a criminal record. But the drug may be confiscated, and the user
given a fine (similar to a speeding fine), or a requirement to attend a
drug treatment or education programme.

Production and supply of cannabis to others remain criminal offences
that may result in punishments carrying a criminal record, for example
a prison sentence, fines or community service.

Scenario E. Illegal – current laws apply

Illegal to
produce, supply and be in possession of cannabis– all lead to a
criminal record

Supply
of cannabis is only through the illegal market where manufacture,
distribution and sale are unregulated. Production, supply and
possession for personal use, or to supply others, can result in
punishments that carry a criminal record, for example a prison
sentence, fines or community service.

Scenario F. Illegal – much heavier penalties
apply

Illegal to
produce, supply and be in possession of cannabis– all carry a
prison sentence

Supply of cannabis is only through the illegal market where
manufacture, distribution and sale are unregulated. Possession for personal
use is always punished with a prison sentence, or a young
offenders’ institution for under 18s. Production and supply to
others is punished with an automatic life prison sentence.
Substantially more money would be spent on enforcement against suppliers
and users.

This blog has many contributors; blog entries or comments posted to blog are not necessarily the views of Transform Drug Policy Foundation. For official comment or position statements on any given topic, or with any feedback or queries, please contact Transform. Transform Drug Policy Foundation is a registered charity No. 1100518